Someone told me to stop taking digs at Hillary and said "Can you give me one positive reason to vote for Donald Trump?"

And while I might be able to come with some reasons, I don't think it's relevant. I could just as easily say:

I'll be perfectly frank. There is nothing positive about Donald Trump other than that he isn't Hillary Clinton. I will explain exactly what I mean. And my reasoning may surprise you but if I let you know it has to do with checks and balances, some of you will work it out.

A short synopsis: There is no way in hell, with the demographics, that Donald Trump and the Republican Party will make the Democrats obsolete. As long as the Republicans, or ANY other second party exists that will keep the Clinton regime from becoming essentially a dictatorship, with control of both houses of Congress and a Supreme Count, and more importantly the DOJ who will never do anything to any of their own, no matter how flagrant the offenses, then we will still have a democracy.

However, once the Democratic machine has complete control, they are unstoppable. They can do whatever they want to keep winning elections, including getting rid of voter ID check by executive action and sending floods of newly Democratic illegal immigrants (or new citizens by Executive Order - who is going to declare Hilary's decision unconstitutional? Hillary's appointed Supreme Court with Obama & Bill's judges on it?) to whatever swing state they are needed. Busing illegal voters will no longer be necessary. Districting will be totally in Democrtic control.

With the Clintons and her hand picked successors in control, things like the Lois Lerner IRS scandal will become commonplace and conservatives will lose their voice as there are many government agencies to sic on them. Who will be the watchdog? The Democrats control everything and the DOJ will be helping keep the dictatorship alive, going after conservatives while flagrant violations by those at the top in government will be ignored. The media, who is now in love with the Democratic machine, will actually be forced to stay in line if they ever want to do real journalism, for there will be no watchdog to stop the new dictatorship from squashing the First Amendment rights of the journalists, having long since trashed the Second Amendment.

While it is possible that Donald Trump's character is worse than Hillary Clinton's, the country will still have a strong democracy after Donald Trump whose administration won't be able to pull any shenanigans because in 4 years the Dems will be back in charge and any clear wrongdoing will send all the wrongdoers in the administration to prison for a long time. So it likely won't happen. Of course I am assuming that her character is bad, which I believe it almost certainly is.

But we have no such safety with Hillary Clinton. If she gets in, she chooses her own DOJ and that could guarantee (with the help of the demographic that is largely liberal) that the Democrats will win all future elections because the American public won't even know that malfeasance is going on (because any true journalism will be punished.) There will be no government that can come in after 4 years and punish her and her administrations for any crimes; for it will be a government of her own choosing, and much of the American public will be fooled forever because the illegal forces that keep the Democrats winning election after election will never see the light of day.

And don't you think that you'll get to pick Hillary's successor either. It will be her choice. Her agencies can make sure that any real challenger to her choice is either intimidated into not running or totally trashed. Of course, there's those super delegates too.

One nice thing about Donald Trump. I'm sure he believes he's what the country needs for president. I'm sure he believes he's never been inappropriate with woman. I'm sure he thinks he's a really good guy.

A) If "the Clinton machine" were so effective, why did she lose to a junior senator from Illinois in 2008?

B) Everyone (in both parties) analyzed the 2012 Romney post-mortem and told Republicans repeatedly that demographics will render their party obsolete until they get away from the racist/misogynist/bigoted dog-whistle politics, and what did they do? They nominated the biggest bloviating bigot they could find.

So don't act like it's 4 years of Hillary that is going to magically turn the electorate against voting Republican. Because Republicans have been doing a fine job with that work all by themselves.

While it is possible that Donald Trump's character is worse than Hillary Clinton's, the country will still have a strong democracy after Donald Trump whose administration won't be able to pull any shenanigans because in 4 years the Dems will be back in charge and any clear wrongdoing will send all the wrongdoers in the administration to prison for a long time. So it likely won't happen. Of course I am assuming that her character is bad, which I believe it almost certainly is.

And yet Donald Trump is the only candidate openly advocating the very things which pose a direct threat to democratic rule. Suppression of the media, exclusion of people based on religion, cleaning out the military of unfavorable generals, and stripping away civil service protections so he can politicize employment at every level of government are CLASSIC moves by someone with totalitarian pretenses.

With A Trump win, we might finally see why the 2nd Amendment is necessary to help protect all the other rights.

I think unquestionably, his candidacy is the wake-up call to the GOP movers and shakers: that the 2012 post-mortem document was either completely ignored or mostly sidelined, and a bare plurality of primary voters settled on the candidate that embodies the exact opposite of all those prescriptions.

With some other candidate, the GOP might've gone through the motions a bit more on the tail end of trends in the electorate. With Trump, I think anyone at the leadership level now recognizes that Trump is the 4-alarm fire that can't be put out by simply tinkering at the margins or just tailoring messaging that much more.

I think a healthier GOP that rejects Trumpism can only be good for the country.

As for Trump the man, I can think of two things:

1) As others have said, he's a natural at grabbing the camera and not letting go2) He actually did bring attention, that might not've been paid otherwise, to communities in America that are really left behind by globalization. I'm not sure somebody like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would've done the same thing.

Now, as to where the GOP goes with this, or what Trump and his supporters do November 9, that's critical. I'm not really holding my breath.

I think you are underestimating the ethics of others in the Democratic party. Even if the Clintons wanted to form what would be effectively a dictatorship, it would take a large number of people to go along with this. And I would like to think that many of them would refuse to do so. Surely there are democrats who you view as principled, and who have a good understanding of the checks and balances needed for a successful modern democratic nation? Whilst some would no doubt knuckle under due to fear or greed, surely many more would not.

Also, you are projecting a lot of fears which I think are unwarranted. Has Clinton indicated that she wants to do any of the things you suggest? Appoint supreme court justices sympathetic to her point of view, yes; but if she proposes suitably qualified candidates then it is difficult to see why they would go against the overall principles by which the US is governed. But I see no reason to think she would squash the first amendment, or even do very much other than tinker around with the second.

If the Republicans pull their socks up after this election (assuming the polls are correct and Clinton wins by a comfortable margin), and pick a credible candidate, work effectively in senate and congress, and move back towards the centre, then they will get somewhere - I'm sure there will be plenty of working/middle class voters displeased with how Clinton continues to suck up to big business (for example) who could be persuaded to switch sides. But if they keep sliding to the crazy wing, then yes, the Democrats will be in charge for ever (until the opposition becomes what is currently the left wing of Democrats, with a small Republican rump hoovering up the most right wing votes).

Whilst character is not the only issue, it is important. Competence, and practical policies also matter, and I have yet to see Trump have any substantive policies even on the issues he cares about. Building a wall and sending Bad Hombre drug lords back to Mexico notwithstanding.

A short synopsis: There is no way in hell, with the demographics, that Donald Trump and the Republican Party will make the Democrats obsolete. As long as the Republicans, or ANY other second party exists that will keep the Clinton regime from becoming essentially a dictatorship, with control of both houses of Congress and a Supreme Count, and more importantly the DOJ who will never do anything to any of their own, no matter how flagrant the offenses, then we will still have a democracy.

However, once the Democratic machine has complete control, they are unstoppable.

disregarding your conspiracy theory stuff donald is a bigger threat to democracy than hillary who will simply be more of the same old same old - the gop needs to reform itself bigly and offer people a real alternative not some raging bigot

I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".

Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.

Kaitlyn_Res wrote:

If she gets in, she chooses her own DOJ and that could guarantee (with the help of the demographic that is largely liberal) that the Democrats will win all future elections because the American public won't even know that malfeasance is going on (because any true journalism will be punished.)

I've bolded the bit where you admitted that you regard the continued power of the Republican Party as it's currently constituted a desirable departure from democracy. What you're saying is that you think the system is rigged in your favor, and that it should be that way.

You're right that it's rigged. In addition to the gerrymandering which left Democrats getting over a million more votes but fewer seats in the House, the Senate gives voters from low-population (generally Republican) states dramatically more power than voters from high-population (generally Democratic) states, both through their Senators and their electors for the Presidency.

The solution isn't to rig the system even further in favor of the existing Republican Party, it's for the Republican Party to begin representing roughly half the voting public. So long as they keep heading down this road of representing an ever-decreasing share of the population, you're right that they aren't an effective check on the Democrats, and that this is a problem. But sticking with them anyway simply delays the time at which they realign and increase the size of their tent so that they can provide an effective, democratically legitimate alternative to the Democrats.

As long as the Republicans, or ANY other second party exists that will keep the Clinton regime from becoming essentially a dictatorship, with control of both houses of Congress and a Supreme Count, and more importantly the DOJ who will never do anything to any of their own, no matter how flagrant the offenses, then we will still have a democracy.

It is likely that Democrats will win the Presidency and the Senate. But they aren't going to win the House and the Republicans control far more state governments than the Democrats. In the 2018 mid-terms, the Democrats are almost guaranteed to lose the Senate.

Kaitlyn_Res wrote:

However, once the Democratic machine has complete control, they are unstoppable. They can do whatever they want to keep winning elections, including getting rid of voter ID check by executive action and sending floods of newly Democratic illegal immigrants (or new citizens by Executive Order - who is going to declare Hilary's decision unconstitutional? Hillary's appointed Supreme Court with Obama & Bill's judges on it?) to whatever swing state they are needed. Busing illegal voters will no longer be necessary. Districting will be totally in Democrtic control.

The Democratic political machine, was in charge of the country for almost 40 years (FDR till Reagan minus Ike, Nixon and Ford) and we got prosperity not a dictatorship. There are plenty of cases where one party had total control the government like President Bush and we didn't have a dictator. I'd like to think that my fellow Americans will never tolerate a dictator but time will tell.

Again, I find Trump much more dangerous for democracy then Clinton. Historically, failure of democracy is almost inevitably slide into populism (or a reaction to such a slide) and Trump is more then anything else a populist.

As for good things to say about him, best I can do is that I genuinely think he honestly does not believe about 80% of the stuff he is campaigning on and considers vast fraction of his voters as total (if useful) idiots.

In a sense I think Trump the person is probably a fair bit smarter, urbane and generally more likeable then Trump the candidate - albeit still entirely unsuited for the office of the president.

I also think he is probably the least religious individual to run for president of United States since Thomas Jefferson (again sort of good thing in my eyes).

Positive things about Trump. He has a good sense of comic timing - for example, in the third debate when Clinton was talking about him complaining about not winning an Emmy, his aside "Shoulda won it" was perfect. Similarly, his later speech saying that he would respect the results of the election (pause for a couple of heartbeats).. "if I win" was superb. The trouble is, they are perfect for an occasion like a quiz show, but are totally inappropriate for a candidate running for the Presidency.

I genuinely can't think of anything else to say in his favour. In character he seems shallow and selfish, and even rather lazy (though surely he must have worked to operate his businesses), as well as sleazy. He is trying to sell himself like a salesman (vote for me, I'll give you a great deal) rather than as a politician (vote for me and I'll do these things) (though I would agree that there is plenty of overlap), and is rather too prone to make off the cuff comments and lacks self-restraint to make a statesman.

If we really have such a monolithic, beastly Democratic party with that much control over the government and the people, why are we not living in this dystopia already? Unless Obama is some weird bastion of integrity that has kept the Democrats in line or something, I'm not really sure I buy Hillary as this masterful leader whom everyone is just waiting to fall in line behind.

EDIT: Also, why do we think Trump isn't going to just fold to the Democrats too? A lot of people here continuously say he's basically a Democrat, he's had a long relationship with the Clintons, etc. He really could just be a Hillary puppet if you go this route. Realistically, you've already lost.